1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Around June 2015, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff received from the Defendant a subcontract from the Defendant of the Gyeonggi-gu Gyeonggi-gun Cridge (hereinafter “instant construction”) for the amount of KRW 48.4 million as indicated in attached Table 1, and completed the subcontract. Since the Plaintiff received KRW 18.3 million from the Defendant on three occasions, the Plaintiff merely sought payment of the remainder construction cost of KRW 30.1 million and damages for delay.

As to this, the defendant ordered the construction of this case to the plaintiff, but attached Table

2. The unit price per item, as described in the statement, was set for only the unit price per item, and there was no settlement as to the actual amount invested in the construction of this case and the construction cost of KRW 48.4 million by the Plaintiff’s assertion, and rather, the Plaintiff’s claim cannot be complied with.

2. In light of the judgment, there is no dispute over the fact that the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant for the instant construction project and completed the construction project, but there is a dispute as to whether the construction cost was set up.

First, in light of the purport of the evidence Nos. 1 and 2 and the whole argument, there is no fact that the construction cost was determined at the time of concluding the above construction contract, and only the unit price for each item of construction work is determined.

Next, after the completion of the instant construction with the Defendant, the Plaintiff’s Schedule

1. The health account statement of which the construction cost was settled or agreed upon as described above, and each statement of evidence Nos. 3, 7, and 14 is insufficient to recognize it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it;

Furthermore, in the instant case without undergoing an appraisal on the part executed by the Plaintiff, the volume inputs in the completion of the instant construction by only the descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 9 and 12

1. It is difficult to readily conclude that it is the same as the description and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, the construction cost for the instant construction project completed by the Plaintiff exceeds KRW 18,30,000 that the Defendant paid to the Plaintiff.